From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] Dynamic memzones Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:15:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1950499.ugaRFZaJI9@xps13> References: <1435332578-28415-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <1435917343-23032-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (mail-wg0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425DC952 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wgxm20 with SMTP id m20so112697505wgx.3 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 06:16:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1435917343-23032-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2015-07-03 10:55, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > Current implemetation allows reserving/creating memzones but not the opposite > (unreserve/free). This affects mempools and other memzone based objects. > > From my point of view, implementing free functionality for memzones would look > like malloc over memsegs. > Thus, this approach moves malloc inside eal (which in turn removes a circular > dependency), where malloc heaps are composed of memsegs. > We keep both malloc and memzone APIs as they are, but memzones allocate its > memory by calling malloc_heap_alloc. > Some extra functionality is required in malloc to allow for boundary constrained > memory requests. > In summary, currently malloc is based on memzones, and with this approach > memzones are based on malloc. Please Sergio, could you rebase your work on top of TileGX series which made some important modifications in memzones? The TileGX series is integrated first. The goal is to integrate this series as soon as possible. Thanks